Institutional isomorphism, negativity bias and performance information use by politicians: A survey experiment

Abstract

New Public Management popularized performance measurement in public organizations. Underlying performance measurement's popularity is the assumption that it injects performance information (PI) into decision-making, thus rationalizing the ensuing decisions. Despite its popularity, performance measurement is criticized. In part, this criticism results from the limited knowledge of the conditions under which PI is purposefully used by politicians. We conducted a survey experiment based on real PI with 1,240 politicians. We hypothesized that PI has a positive impact on performance information use (PIU) when PI is benchmarked with coercive, mimetic or normative pressures. Moreover, due to negativity bias we expected this positive impact to be stronger when PI signals low performance. We found that normative pressures had a positive impact on actual PIU while coercive pressures positively affected intended PIU. Negativity bias is only relevant when linked to coercive pressures and intended PIU for analysing the organization's finances. | INTRODUCTIONThe advent of New Public Management (NPM)-a focus on accountability, effectiveness and efficiency-has ignited the popularity of performance measurement in public organizations (Hood 1991;Osborne 2006). Performance measurement has been conceptualized as an approach to strategy implementation which includes (a) using performance information to track the realization of strategic goals over time, (b) setting targets for this information and evaluating performance against those targets and (c) comparing performance information across departments and with other organizations (Poister et al. 2013;George and Desmidt 2018). Underlying its popularity is the assumption that

The role(s) of accounting and performance measurement systems in contemporary public administration

“…Along these lines, both George et al () and Micheli and Pavlov () explore and identify the possible drivers of performance information use(s), with the former mainly focusing on how institutional forces influence politicians’ behaviours, and the latter exploring internal organizational dynamics, and, importantly, how and why different actors will favour different uses.…”

“…Along these lines, both George et al (2019) and Micheli and Pavlov (2019) explore and identify the possible drivers of performance information use(s), with the former mainly focusing on how institutional forces influence politicians' behaviours, and the latter exploring internal organizational dynamics, and, importantly, how and why different actors will favour different uses. appear to lead to a higher intended performance information use, normative pressures (comparisons with performance standards recommended by a professional organization) encourage respondents to share contact details in order to learn more about the performance indicator.…”

“…George et al (2019) explore institutional pressures and possible negativity bias in exploring the drivers of performance information use by politicians in Flemish local governments. The role of institutional forces has been considered in empirical research on performance measurement systems (seeBrignall and Modell 2000;Van Helden et al 2008;Johansson and Siverbo 2009;Modell 2009;Korac et al 2019).…”

The relevance and reliability of performance information for accountability: A survey experiment exploring citizens' views

“…According to prospect theory, people who are usually risk‐averse develop different attitudes and engage in different behaviours when they face a loss as opposed to a gain (James ; Kahneman ; Van Ryzin ). The psychological literature and political and public administration research have all indicated that people attribute more importance to, and experience stronger emotions about, negative trends or results than positive results (Rozin and Royzman ; Schwartz ; George et al ). Various studies also emphasize the negativity bias related to citizens' interpretations of performance information (James ; James and Moseley ; Olsen ).…”

“…Here again, we cannot draw a clear-cut conclusion as to whether either the improvement or the worsening of performance influences citizens' interpretations more than the other. The marginal impact of the trend of the indicators on citizens' interpretations contradicts a large volume of work indicating that people attribute more importance to and are more passionate about negative trends or results than positive outcomes(Rozin and Royzman 2001;James 2011;Kahneman 2011;Van Ryzin 2013;Schwartz 2014;George et al 2018). Our analysis not only does not support this idea of a negativity bias but also indicates that the trends the indicators show play a marginal role in the public's interpretation of performance information.…”